The court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash a procedurally illegal dismissal order if the employee is subsequently convicted of a serious offense, as granting relief would be contrary to public policy and the moral standards required for the profession.

ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23/10/2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Education Officer, whereby, he has been dismissed from service under Rule 10(ix) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "CCA Rules") on the ground that an FIR has been registered against him for serious offences.

Facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Teacher and was posted at Govt. Primary School, Arrolli, Development Block Morar, Gwalior. An FIR was registered against him at Police Station Behat, District Gwalior on 22/10/2022 for offence punishable under 354 of IPC read with Section 7 & 8 of POCSO Act. Taking note of the FIR, respondent no.3 passed the impugned order on the next date i.e. 23/10/2022, thereby, dismissing the petitioner from service on account of aforesaid FIR registered against him for the serious offences.

The aforesaid order has been passed on the directions of the Collector, Gwalior. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

The impugned order of dismissal from services has been challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a confirmed Govt. servant, and therefore, he could not have been dismissed from service merely on registration of FIR against him. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Rule 10 of CCA Rules and submitted that no punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner without conducting departmental enquiry. He also submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case because of the political rivalry of the parents of children, and therefore, without affording him opportunity of hearing, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service.

On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned action of respondent no.2 & 3. She submitted that the petitioner was working as Teacher and the allegations made against him are with regard to misbehaviour with the minor girl students constituting serious offence under the POCSO Act which could not have been tolerated. Learned counsel argued that Rule 19 of the CCA Rules empowers the competent authority to waive the procedure for conducting enquiry in cases of involvement of a Govt. servant in serious criminal acts. She also submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has been convicted for the aforesaid offence vide judgment dated 8/4/2024 passed in Special Case (Sessions)

No.288/2022 by XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior. She thus submitted that since the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been duly established in the criminal case, the petitioner even otherwise does not warrant continuance in service.

The learned Govt. Advocate further pointed out that the petitioner was arrested on 24/10/2022 and he remained in custody till 7/7/2025 when this Court, while suspending his remaining jail sentence, enlarged him on bail in Cr.A. No.6201/2024. She thus submitted that based upon the conviction of the petitioner, the impugned order is justified and does not warrant any interference in the present writ petition. She therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Considered the arguments and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 23/10/2022 was passed based upon the FIR registered against the petitioner on 22/10/2022. The impugned order refers to Rule 10(ix) of the CCA Rules, which contemplates major punishment of dismissal from service.

The opening words of Rule 14 of CCA Rules provides that "No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 shall be made except after an inquiry held". The punishment order of dismissal from service, therefore, could not have been passed without con